list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Million Dollar Baby on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Million_Dollar_Baby/244282/default.aspx Title: Million Dollar Baby
Year: 2004
Director: Clint Eastwood
Plot: Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) is a veteran boxing trainer who has devoted his life to the ring and has precious little to show for it; his daughter never answers his letters, and a fighter he's groomed into contender status has paid him back by signing with another manager, leaving Frankie high and dry. His best friend and faithful employee Eddie Dupris is a former fighter who Frankie trained. In his last fight, Eddie suffered a severe injury, a fact that brings Frankie great guilt. One day, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) enters Frankie's life, as well as his gym, and announces she needs a trainer. Frankie regards her as a dubious prospect, and isn't afraid to tell her why: he doesn't think much of women boxing, she's too old at 31, she lacks experience, and has no technique. However, Maggie sees boxing as the one part of her life that gives her meaning and won't give up easily. Finally won over by her determination, Frankie takes on Maggie, and as she slowly grows into a viable fighter, an emotional bond develops between them. When a tragedy befalls one of the three characters, each comes to a decision that shows how the relationships in the film have changed them. Adapted from a short story by F.X. Toole, a former corner man with years of experience in the fight game, Million Dollar Baby also stars Morgan Freeman, Anthony Mackie, and Mike Colter. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 29
Number of Lists: 53
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 19
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:50:57 GMTMillion Dollar Baby2004Clint EastwoodFrankie Dunn (<a href="/players/P____88601/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Clint Eastwood</a>) is a veteran boxing trainer who has devoted his life to the ring and has precious little to show for it; his daughter never answers his letters, and a fighter he's groomed into contender status has paid him back by signing with another manager, leaving Frankie high and dry. His best friend and faithful employee Eddie Dupris is a former fighter who Frankie trained. In his last fight, Eddie suffered a severe injury, a fact that brings Frankie great guilt. One day, Maggie Fitzgerald (<a href="/players/P___167442/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hilary Swank</a>) enters Frankie's life, as well as his gym, and announces she needs a trainer. Frankie regards her as a dubious prospect, and isn't afraid to tell her why: he doesn't think much of women boxing, she's too old at 31, she lacks experience, and has no technique. However, Maggie sees boxing as the one part of her life that gives her meaning and won't give up easily. Finally won over by her determination, Frankie takes on Maggie, and as she slowly grows into a viable fighter, an emotional bond develops between them. When a tragedy befalls one of the three characters, each comes to a decision that shows how the relationships in the film have changed them. Adapted from a short story by F.X. Toole, a former corner man with years of experience in the fight game, Million Dollar Baby also stars <a href="/players/P____90514/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Morgan Freeman</a>, <a href="/players/P___347951/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anthony Mackie</a>, and Mike Colter. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide29Tag Target (>10)537193http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t89144cfhg4.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Million_Dollar_Baby/244282/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_28_The_Infinite_Sad/625/44118/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/5/2009 1:35:33 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] Sorry for the delay but I've been in a Six Feet Under k-hole for the past week and haven't been doing much of else. The final episode of the series had me crying like almost never before and it got me thinking about how much I enjoy a good cry. The raw emotion, the circling thoughts of this or that that keep the tears streaming down your face, the feeling of suffocating in your throat: not too much in this life compares to it. [/quote] A good cry is something that can be a cap on a really great movie for me as well. I find myself crying for lots of different reasons in films though. [quote user="mercurial"] And probably the best cry I've ever had in a movie is The Shawshank Redemption. Gets me crying like a baby every time I watch it. [/quote] Dude, there's something about it. I don't know what it is. But even if it's ALL I see, whenever the very last couple minutes of The Shawshank Redemption start playing, the tears just start welling up. Although the one film moment that might get the tears going even stronger and more reliably would be the final big breakdown from Lee J. Cobb's character. I get goosebumps and almost start crying just reading a transcript of it! I think it may be the most perfect moment in cinema for me. I've also had tears of happiness well up in my eyes for strange kind of happy moments too. When the new Star Wars movies came out, I would almost start crying just as the opening theme started playing and the familiar logo and text scroll started running. Sometimes it's a perfect blend of what just seems like overpowering truth. Humor, sadness, reality, absurdity, all perfectly portrayed. The end of Dr. Strangelove for instance. Tears come to my eyes here too. Most of the film of The Seventh Seal hits me too because of the truth of every character's struggle. Oh and I just remembered, what might be the best rival for that monologue in 12 Angry Men would be the monologue in Fargo by Margie in the cop car hauling away Gaear Grimsrud. So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it. Ah! That sums it up so perfectly! You just have to shed a tear for everything it says. Then of course there are times when I really HATE a movie for making me cry. Because it's total manipulation. In other words, it throws up certain images and sounds and music that we already have some emotional attachment to outside of the film and edits them together in a way that makes you cry. But if the actual story of the film is total bullshit, then that's manipulation. The cry doesn't flow freely from the complete work of the film. It's just a psychological trick. One of the biggest examples here would be I Am Sam. People naturally have an immediate strong reaction to cute, innocent and defenseless people being taken advantage of. Who is more stereotypically innocent and defenseless than mentally retarded people and children? And when you throw in a vague oppresive authority system and one dementional villains, the only final blow you really need is Beatles music, the most loved pop music in the world. The tears flow, but not because of any context of the film, because of outside contexts. Paul Haggis pulls this same kind of crap with Million Dollar Baby and Crash.
]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:35:33 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme10/5/2009 1:35:33 PM[quote user="mercurial"] Sorry for the delay but I've been in a Six Feet Under k-hole for the past week and haven't been doing much of else. The final episode of the series had me crying like almost never before and it got me thinking about how much I enjoy a good cry. The raw emotion, the circling thoughts of this or that that keep the tears streaming down your face, the feeling of suffocating in your throat: not too much in this life compares to it. [/quote] A good cry is something that can be a cap on a really great movie for me as well. I find myself crying for lots of different reasons in films though. [quote user="mercurial"] And probably the best cry I've ever had in a movie is The Shawshank Redemption. Gets me crying like a baby every time I watch it. [/quote] Dude, there's something about it. I don't know what it is. But even if it's ALL I see, whenever the very last couple minutes of The Shawshank Redemption start playing, the tears just start welling up. Although the one film moment that might get the tears going even stronger and more reliably would be the final big breakdown from Lee J. Cobb's character. I get goosebumps and almost start crying just reading a transcript of it! I think it may be the most perfect moment in cinema for me. I've also had tears of happiness well up in my eyes for strange kind of happy moments too. When the new Star Wars movies came out, I would almost start crying just as the opening theme started playing and the familiar logo and text scroll started running. Sometimes it's a perfect blend of what just seems like overpowering truth. Humor, sadness, reality, absurdity, all perfectly portrayed. The end of Dr. Strangelove for instance. Tears come to my eyes here too. Most of the film of The Seventh Seal hits me too because of the truth of every character's struggle. Oh and I just remembered, what might be the best rival for that monologue in 12 Angry Men would be the monologue in Fargo by Margie in the cop car hauling away Gaear Grimsrud. So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it. Ah! That sums it up so perfectly! You just have to shed a tear for everything it says. Then of course there are times when I really HATE a movie for making me cry. Because it's total manipulation. In other words, it throws up certain images and sounds and music that we already have some emotional attachment to outside of the film and edits them together in a way that makes you cry. But if the actual story of the film is total bullshit, then that's manipulation. The cry doesn't flow freely from the complete work of the film. It's just a psychological trick. One of the biggest examples here would be I Am Sam. People naturally have an immediate strong reaction to cute, innocent and defenseless people being taken advantage of. Who is more stereotypically innocent and defenseless than mentally retarded people and children? And when you throw in a vague oppresive authority system and one dementional villains, the only final blow you really need is Beatles music, the most loved pop music in the world. The tears flow, but not because of any context of the film, because of outside contexts. Paul Haggis pulls this same kind of crap with Million Dollar Baby and Crash. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/7/20/43199.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 7/20/2009 1:50:57 PM
Body: This is the fourth feature length film I've seen by director Vittorio De Sica. I chose to watch this film based on previous good ratings I've given other films by this director and to better my favorite directors by algorithm listing. Una breve vacanza (A Brief Vacation) My previous three film experiences from Vittorio De Sica were from his earlier and probably most acclaimed neo-realism period of the late 40s/early 50s, specifically Shoe-Shine, The Bicycle Thief, and Umberto D. All of them being fantastic, the latter two being perfect masterpieces. Jump a couple decades into the future with this, his second to last film. I'm not sure what a lot of his films in between were like. I suspect some of them may have been a bit livelier since many are billed as comedies, in which case this may have been a bit of a return to form. The beginning of the film seems very familiar setting in a simple and somewhat impoverished abode. Despite this, it's hard to like or feel much sympathy for the protagonist Clara or anyone else at the beginning of the film. She seems so upset, although we can't quite tell if her attitude is justified yet. Soon however we see what a rather kind hearted person she is and how much she has to put up with. Actually there are a lot of cases in this film of feeling one way towards a character when we are first introduced to them and then completely different by the end. For instance, the rich and egotistical woman singer is completely obnoxious and unlikeable at first. I thought I would hate the movie because of her and that fact that I was so annoyed whenever she appeared on screen. Shocking to find that she would be one of the most sympathetic characters by the end. Unfortunately a few characters came off a bit one dimensional and almost unbelievable unlikeable for the purpose of producing specific emotions. The portrayal of the Clara's annoying and selfish family was almost as bad as the girl boxer's family in the horrible Million Dollar Baby. Like films like The Bicycle Thief, this film does a great job at showing a rather harsh world of working class Italy. Unlike most of that film however, we at least get a brief vacation. Brief because by the end of the film it's over and we are thrust back into that world once more. Vittorio De Sica:Total feature length films seen: 4Previous average film score: 9.6667New average film score: 9.25 Rating: 8/10
]]>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:50:57 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog7/20/2009 1:50:57 PMThis is the fourth feature length film I've seen by director Vittorio De Sica. I chose to watch this film based on previous good ratings I've given other films by this director and to better my favorite directors by algorithm listing. Una breve vacanza (A Brief Vacation) My previous three film experiences from Vittorio De Sica were from his earlier and probably most acclaimed neo-realism period of the late 40s/early 50s, specifically Shoe-Shine, The Bicycle Thief, and Umberto D. All of them being fantastic, the latter two being perfect masterpieces. Jump a couple decades into the future with this, his second to last film. I'm not sure what a lot of his films in between were like. I suspect some of them may have been a bit livelier since many are billed as comedies, in which case this may have been a bit of a return to form. The beginning of the film seems very familiar setting in a simple and somewhat impoverished abode. Despite this, it's hard to like or feel much sympathy for the protagonist Clara or anyone else at the beginning of the film. She seems so upset, although we can't quite tell if her attitude is justified yet. Soon however we see what a rather kind hearted person she is and how much she has to put up with. Actually there are a lot of cases in this film of feeling one way towards a character when we are first introduced to them and then completely different by the end. For instance, the rich and egotistical woman singer is completely obnoxious and unlikeable at first. I thought I would hate the movie because of her and that fact that I was so annoyed whenever she appeared on screen. Shocking to find that she would be one of the most sympathetic characters by the end. Unfortunately a few characters came off a bit one dimensional and almost unbelievable unlikeable for the purpose of producing specific emotions. The portrayal of the Clara's annoying and selfish family was almost as bad as the girl boxer's family in the horrible Million Dollar Baby. Like films like The Bicycle Thief, this film does a great job at showing a rather harsh world of working class Italy. Unlike most of that film however, we at least get a brief vacation. Brief because by the end of the film it's over and we are thrust back into that world once more. Vittorio De Sica:Total feature length films seen: 4Previous average film score: 9.6667New average film score: 9.25 Rating: 8/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_movies_about_boxing_is_your_favo/657/42515/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 6/3/2009 9:13:41 AM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"] Well I have only seen Million Dollar Baby but I will not give a vote for it. I almost got thrown out of the theater because I was laughing so hard throughout the entire film. I know, I'm evil. [/quote] Have you seen Scary Movie 4? It's pretty mediocre overall, but the Million Dollar Baby pariody in the ring when everyone's necks keep getting snapped is so funny it's almost worth just renting the movie and fast forwarding to that moment if you don't want to watch the rest. Or you could just rent Million Dollar Baby again and laugh at it some more. [/quote] Yeah, Million Dollar Baby sucks pretty hard. I don't know if I've ever watched a movie that's supposedly "good" and hated it so much upon first viewing. I voted Raging Bull because in my mind, it's one of the greatest movies of all time, and by far the best boxing movie. I debated whether or not to give Cinderella Man a vote though, because I feel like it's way underappreciated.
]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:13:41 GMTSmooth_JMovie Polls6/3/2009 9:13:41 AM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="mercurial"] Well I have only seen Million Dollar Baby but I will not give a vote for it. I almost got thrown out of the theater because I was laughing so hard throughout the entire film. I know, I'm evil. [/quote] Have you seen Scary Movie 4? It's pretty mediocre overall, but the Million Dollar Baby pariody in the ring when everyone's necks keep getting snapped is so funny it's almost worth just renting the movie and fast forwarding to that moment if you don't want to watch the rest. Or you could just rent Million Dollar Baby again and laugh at it some more. [/quote] Yeah, Million Dollar Baby sucks pretty hard. I don't know if I've ever watched a movie that's supposedly "good" and hated it so much upon first viewing. I voted Raging Bull because in my mind, it's one of the greatest movies of all time, and by far the best boxing movie. I debated whether or not to give Cinderella Man a vote though, because I feel like it's way underappreciated. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_movies_about_boxing_is_your_favo/657/42507/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 6/2/2009 6:22:07 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] Well I have only seen Million Dollar Baby but I will not give a vote for it. I almost got thrown out of the theater because I was laughing so hard throughout the entire film. I know, I'm evil. [/quote] Have you seen Scary Movie 4? It's pretty mediocre overall, but the Million Dollar Baby pariody in the ring when everyone's necks keep getting snapped is so funny it's almost worth just renting the movie and fast forwarding to that moment if you don't want to watch the rest. Or you could just rent Million Dollar Baby again and laugh at it some more.
]]>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:22:07 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls6/2/2009 6:22:07 PM[quote user="mercurial"] Well I have only seen Million Dollar Baby but I will not give a vote for it. I almost got thrown out of the theater because I was laughing so hard throughout the entire film. I know, I'm evil. [/quote] Have you seen Scary Movie 4? It's pretty mediocre overall, but the Million Dollar Baby pariody in the ring when everyone's necks keep getting snapped is so funny it's almost worth just renting the movie and fast forwarding to that moment if you don't want to watch the rest. Or you could just rent Million Dollar Baby again and laugh at it some more. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_movies_about_boxing_is_your_favo/657/42506/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Windbreaker
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 6/2/2009 6:06:58 PM
Body: I *love* The Set-Up. Love it - glad you enjoyed it, Rizzo. I just barely hit the vote button for Rocky. But they're similar in that they're both great dramas that happen to involve boxers. [quote user="Risselada"] Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I just saw The Set-Up and I think it's my new favorite boxing movie! It's probably the shortest one too. Which of these is your favorite boxing movie? Sorry if I left your favorite out, but I didn't want the list to be TOO long. Please leave comments! Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Body and SoulChampionCinderella ManFat CityGentleman JimMillion Dollar BabyRaging BullRockyThe Set-UpSomebody Up There Likes MeWhen We Were Kings [/quote]
]]>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:06:58 GMTWindbreakerMovie Polls6/2/2009 6:06:58 PMI *love* The Set-Up. Love it - glad you enjoyed it, Rizzo. I just barely hit the vote button for Rocky. But they're similar in that they're both great dramas that happen to involve boxers. [quote user="Risselada"] Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I just saw The Set-Up and I think it's my new favorite boxing movie! It's probably the shortest one too. Which of these is your favorite boxing movie? Sorry if I left your favorite out, but I didn't want the list to be TOO long. Please leave comments! Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Body and SoulChampionCinderella ManFat CityGentleman JimMillion Dollar BabyRaging BullRockyThe Set-UpSomebody Up There Likes MeWhen We Were Kings [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Which_of_these_movies_about_boxing_is_your_favorit/657/42502/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 6/2/2009 1:31:08 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I just saw The Set-Up and I think it's my new favorite boxing movie! It's probably the shortest one too. Which of these is your favorite boxing movie? Sorry if I left your favorite out, but I didn't want the list to be TOO long. Please leave comments! Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Body and SoulChampionCinderella ManFat CityGentleman JimMillion Dollar BabyRaging BullRockyThe Set-UpSomebody Up There Likes MeWhen We Were Kings
]]>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:31:08 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls6/2/2009 1:31:08 PMPlease reference this thread for the rules of this group. I just saw The Set-Up and I think it's my new favorite boxing movie! It's probably the shortest one too. Which of these is your favorite boxing movie? Sorry if I left your favorite out, but I didn't want the list to be TOO long. Please leave comments! Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Body and SoulChampionCinderella ManFat CityGentleman JimMillion Dollar BabyRaging BullRockyThe Set-UpSomebody Up There Likes MeWhen We Were Kings http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/Re_81st_Oscars_Sh_t_or_Shinola/46/41200/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 3/23/2009 1:28:57 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] Well it's like any situation with the media. It goes back and forth. The media tries to sense what people want and they give it back to them plus a little bit more. Then people get what they want plus a little bit of media invention or embellishment. They start to accept the little bit extra that was presented of it and think they want more of it. The media sees what they want and gives them more and then adds a little more... etc. So no doubt as the show was televised people took more interest. And as people took more interest, they advertised it more. And probably as it got to be more well known, movie studios started advertising actors or other people who worked on their films as oscar winners. And people already have enough of a celebrity worship that to see all these celebrities in a room honoring each other, they take stock in that kind of thing. I guess I'm kind of just repeating what you already acknowledged. I'm not sure why. I won't deny that obviously many people give Oscar cred. I mean that's what the debate is about here. SHOULD we be giving the Oscar cred though? I'm saying that I'm not often inclinded to because of all the reasons we've been talking about. [/quote] Right. It's simply important to acknowledge that the Academy and the Oscars and the people who find them important aren't really at fault for blowing them, perhaps, out of proportion. The media is a whole separate entity that can be tried, convicted, and sentenced for sensationalizing anything and everything all the time, and it's a whole separate convo that could last for years. [/quote] Well no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Academy and the Media AND the public are all equally responsible. They they all keep fueling the sensationalization. They are not completely separate, but all tied together. Heck, the Academy is Hollywood and Hollywood is media. And often ownership of Hollywood entities own all other media outlets. [quote user="pippin06"] Should we be giving Oscar cred? I think the answer is taste again. I think it's valid for even an incestuous (inbred...family reunion...thingy) to issue awards to the members. I think what they nominate is a fair representation of deserving films. I think the Academy gets it right at least some of the time when they choose winners, but that's my opinion. When I'm watching Oscar nominees, frequently from years past because I can only watch so many films at a time, and I like to change it up, I tend to think about what else got nominated and compare. I tend to subscribe to at least some of the Best picks. Is it because they won the Oscar? Arguably yes (I like to compare), arguably no (I care less about the winners). I'm more inclined to nominees rather than winners, but that's just me again. I think the Academy has as much right as anyone to award themselves. It's just like the Grand Awards, which are awarded by a committee comprised of theater community members, some from the community theaters in GR and some from the college theaters. Who better to issue those awards than the people actually working in the areas? If you don't buy that, maybe someone (I leave that to the public to nominate just who) should start up an Oscars voted on by the people. Oh wait, that's the People's Choice Awards. There's the Indie awards for the Independent filmmakers and the Critics Choice for the critics and the Guild awards for all levels of production....that's why in this group, I've tried to present other filmmaking awards that tend to inform Oscar anyway. But it all comes down to taste. Enough people put stock in awards as validation (whether winning or watching the winning), but you might not. [/quote] It's perfectly fine with me if people want to award themselves, but when it's the biggest and most famous award show in the world and the results with knowingly dictate not only what kinds of movies most people will see and come to accept as good but also what kinds of movies will continue to receive future funding. When the movies that win are movies that I find present skewed or unchallenging worldviews, I find that frustrating. If they would at least change the awards from being the "best" in a category to the "favorite" in a category that would be nice too. [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] And then it gets more frustrating when people take a lot of stock in an award that I feel picks winners that I don't necessarily appreciate as much as some of the "competition". But then again, there are times when I like things that may be called subversive. And without having a mass of people liking and doing things that I don't agree with, there would be no enjoyment in being subversive. It's not that I WANT to be subversive just for it's own sake (I hope not) it just doesn't seem like the world is going to change. I guess when we are rewarding art it's especially subjective. But I think if you look through history you will find that the best art usually is subversive and only truely recognized as the best after time. The best artists are not recognized often by their peers. This is a generalization of a complicated issue. I do certainly like finding out what films receive acclaim from other filmmakers, especially onces I respect. But it doesn't need to have all of the dopey glitz and glamour for me, and there doesn't have to be just one winner. I guess that's why I like certain lists, like the Sight and Sound poll for instance. [/quote] You hit on an important point: Oscar hype tends more to the present than to timelessness. The deserving Best movies are still discussed decades later (i.e. Gone with the Wind or the Godfather) while other movies, whether nominated and lost (Star Wars; Citizen Kane) or not nominated (Psycho, snubbed for Best Picture/Director, though it won Original Screenplay and was nominated for others), don't need Oscar to validate their artistic excellence because people are championing them years later. Look at the AFI lists (which is why I am also compiling them in this group). Not everyone even subscribes to those, but many of the films on the Greatest lists never won Oscars, or won less than notorious Oscar prizes. That doesn't mean that Oscar's presence in the present doesn't count for something: it's a time capsule snapshot of what was discussed as "great" for the appropriate year, and it's a yardstick by which to measure and compare other good films. And the dopey glitz and glamor are appealing to some, ok :-D. I like the glitz and glamour. Sometimes, people just want fluff and entertainment...hence the silly awards show. Art is subjective, but I maintain that it's up to you. Take them or leave them, the Oscars are relevant, even if they're not relevant to you. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. As to the Academy itself, actually there are dissenting opinions. The face of the Academy has changed quite substantially. First, the membership is larger. It's more diverse, not only in culture but in age. The fact that a film like Slumdog even got nominated is a testament to how much it's changed (it's from India, it's not cut according to a "classic" cloth). And there is much talk, usually every year, about snubbed contenders. But it's a voting membership. It is a club, and a somewhat exclusive one, but it's not the type of fraternity of homogenous thinkers you might be inclined to regard it as. The majority of votes wins. So, a film like The Wrestler (which would not have been nominated ten years ago) probably won't beat a feel-good like Slumdog Millionaire, because the membership is massive, and it's a mass, and masses tend toward certain types of films, and the mass is changing in its group dynamic. The Academy used to be comprised of older, non-ethnic type men because that's who started the tradition...but the tradition is breaking. Maybe not in step or in time with some people's pulses (ahem). At this point, I encourage any member of the group, actually, to discuss barometers or rankings or polls or awards that mean something to you and explain why. Because I understand the antipathy toward the Oscars, but I'll remain a steadfast supporter because, chances are, it'll expose me to some films I might not have otherwise considered. But maybe something else means more to you, like Rizzo mentioned the Sight and Sound polls. I don't mean to duplicate the Movie Polls group (there was a similar poll not too long ago), but we're dissecting this in such an in-depth way, I think it's worthwhile to offer it up as an alternative. I might not be able to convince you that the Oscars are worthwhile, so maybe something else will be more valid to you...or maybe nothing will be. Say it here. [/quote] I just don't find the fact that a movie from India won is really a testament to much change at all, relative to the huge scope of what is really out there. Where a movie is from does not affect me as much as what it's saying or how it says it. I guess it's not fair for me to pass judgement Slumdog Millionaire it until I've actually seen it though, so I won't say much more about it. But in general the Academy seems to award movies that tackle important issues but give simple or cliche answers and are often manipulative towards an audiences emtion in a false way to bring them to that kind of emotional response. Sadly I've heard reviews of Slumdog Millionaire from people I respect who seem to say this fits in that category. Since I can't say for sure since I haven't seen it, I'll hold off judgement. But I have seen best picture winners Million Dollar Baby (what's with the million dollar motif here??) and Crash, and those are some examples. Because I'm a geek about my movie ratings and stats and such, I decided to check on what my average overall movie rating is vs. the average rating I gave for Best Picture Oscar winners. Out of about 1,181 feature length movies proper that I have rated, my average rating is 7.5250. Out of 33 of the Best Picture Oscar winners I have seen my average rating is 7.7727. There is only about a 3% difference between those numbers. So basically left to my own method of what movies I end up seeing compared to the Oscar winners, my level of enjoyment is pretty negligable. Or in otherwords, the average Best Picture Oscar winner that I've seen is not any better to me than than any other average movie I see. I would be interested in seeing the stats on Best Picture Oscar nominees, but getting those stats will probably take a lot longer, and I doubt there will be much difference there either.
]]>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:28:57 GMTRisseladaIt's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!3/23/2009 1:28:57 PM[quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] Well it's like any situation with the media. It goes back and forth. The media tries to sense what people want and they give it back to them plus a little bit more. Then people get what they want plus a little bit of media invention or embellishment. They start to accept the little bit extra that was presented of it and think they want more of it. The media sees what they want and gives them more and then adds a little more... etc. So no doubt as the show was televised people took more interest. And as people took more interest, they advertised it more. And probably as it got to be more well known, movie studios started advertising actors or other people who worked on their films as oscar winners. And people already have enough of a celebrity worship that to see all these celebrities in a room honoring each other, they take stock in that kind of thing. I guess I'm kind of just repeating what you already acknowledged. I'm not sure why. I won't deny that obviously many people give Oscar cred. I mean that's what the debate is about here. SHOULD we be giving the Oscar cred though? I'm saying that I'm not often inclinded to because of all the reasons we've been talking about. [/quote] Right. It's simply important to acknowledge that the Academy and the Oscars and the people who find them important aren't really at fault for blowing them, perhaps, out of proportion. The media is a whole separate entity that can be tried, convicted, and sentenced for sensationalizing anything and everything all the time, and it's a whole separate convo that could last for years. [/quote] Well no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Academy and the Media AND the public are all equally responsible. They they all keep fueling the sensationalization. They are not completely separate, but all tied together. Heck, the Academy is Hollywood and Hollywood is media. And often ownership of Hollywood entities own all other media outlets. [quote user="pippin06"] Should we be giving Oscar cred? I think the answer is taste again. I think it's valid for even an incestuous (inbred...family reunion...thingy) to issue awards to the members. I think what they nominate is a fair representation of deserving films. I think the Academy gets it right at least some of the time when they choose winners, but that's my opinion. When I'm watching Oscar nominees, frequently from years past because I can only watch so many films at a time, and I like to change it up, I tend to think about what else got nominated and compare. I tend to subscribe to at least some of the Best picks. Is it because they won the Oscar? Arguably yes (I like to compare), arguably no (I care less about the winners). I'm more inclined to nominees rather than winners, but that's just me again. I think the Academy has as much right as anyone to award themselves. It's just like the Grand Awards, which are awarded by a committee comprised of theater community members, some from the community theaters in GR and some from the college theaters. Who better to issue those awards than the people actually working in the areas? If you don't buy that, maybe someone (I leave that to the public to nominate just who) should start up an Oscars voted on by the people. Oh wait, that's the People's Choice Awards. There's the Indie awards for the Independent filmmakers and the Critics Choice for the critics and the Guild awards for all levels of production....that's why in this group, I've tried to present other filmmaking awards that tend to inform Oscar anyway. But it all comes down to taste. Enough people put stock in awards as validation (whether winning or watching the winning), but you might not. [/quote] It's perfectly fine with me if people want to award themselves, but when it's the biggest and most famous award show in the world and the results with knowingly dictate not only what kinds of movies most people will see and come to accept as good but also what kinds of movies will continue to receive future funding. When the movies that win are movies that I find present skewed or unchallenging worldviews, I find that frustrating. If they would at least change the awards from being the "best" in a category to the "favorite" in a category that would be nice too. [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="Risselada"] And then it gets more frustrating when people take a lot of stock in an award that I feel picks winners that I don't necessarily appreciate as much as some of the "competition". But then again, there are times when I like things that may be called subversive. And without having a mass of people liking and doing things that I don't agree with, there would be no enjoyment in being subversive. It's not that I WANT to be subversive just for it's own sake (I hope not) it just doesn't seem like the world is going to change. I guess when we are rewarding art it's especially subjective. But I think if you look through history you will find that the best art usually is subversive and only truely recognized as the best after time. The best artists are not recognized often by their peers. This is a generalization of a complicated issue. I do certainly like finding out what films receive acclaim from other filmmakers, especially onces I respect. But it doesn't need to have all of the dopey glitz and glamour for me, and there doesn't have to be just one winner. I guess that's why I like certain lists, like the Sight and Sound poll for instance. [/quote] You hit on an important point: Oscar hype tends more to the present than to timelessness. The deserving Best movies are still discussed decades later (i.e. Gone with the Wind or the Godfather) while other movies, whether nominated and lost (Star Wars; Citizen Kane) or not nominated (Psycho, snubbed for Best Picture/Director, though it won Original Screenplay and was nominated for others), don't need Oscar to validate their artistic excellence because people are championing them years later. Look at the AFI lists (which is why I am also compiling them in this group). Not everyone even subscribes to those, but many of the films on the Greatest lists never won Oscars, or won less than notorious Oscar prizes. That doesn't mean that Oscar's presence in the present doesn't count for something: it's a time capsule snapshot of what was discussed as "great" for the appropriate year, and it's a yardstick by which to measure and compare other good films. And the dopey glitz and glamor are appealing to some, ok :-D. I like the glitz and glamour. Sometimes, people just want fluff and entertainment...hence the silly awards show. Art is subjective, but I maintain that it's up to you. Take them or leave them, the Oscars are relevant, even if they're not relevant to you. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. As to the Academy itself, actually there are dissenting opinions. The face of the Academy has changed quite substantially. First, the membership is larger. It's more diverse, not only in culture but in age. The fact that a film like Slumdog even got nominated is a testament to how much it's changed (it's from India, it's not cut according to a "classic" cloth). And there is much talk, usually every year, about snubbed contenders. But it's a voting membership. It is a club, and a somewhat exclusive one, but it's not the type of fraternity of homogenous thinkers you might be inclined to regard it as. The majority of votes wins. So, a film like The Wrestler (which would not have been nominated ten years ago) probably won't beat a feel-good like Slumdog Millionaire, because the membership is massive, and it's a mass, and masses tend toward certain types of films, and the mass is changing in its group dynamic. The Academy used to be comprised of older, non-ethnic type men because that's who started the tradition...but the tradition is breaking. Maybe not in step or in time with some people's pulses (ahem). At this point, I encourage any member of the group, actually, to discuss barometers or rankings or polls or awards that mean something to you and explain why. Because I understand the antipathy toward the Oscars, but I'll remain a steadfast supporter because, chances are, it'll expose me to some films I might not have otherwise considered. But maybe something else means more to you, like Rizzo mentioned the Sight and Sound polls. I don't mean to duplicate the Movie Polls group (there was a similar poll not too long ago), but we're dissecting this in such an in-depth way, I think it's worthwhile to offer it up as an alternative. I might not be able to convince you that the Oscars are worthwhile, so maybe something else will be more valid to you...or maybe nothing will be. Say it here. [/quote] I just don't find the fact that a movie from India won is really a testament to much change at all, relative to the huge scope of what is really out there. Where a movie is from does not affect me as much as what it's saying or how it says it. I guess it's not fair for me to pass judgement Slumdog Millionaire it until I've actually seen it though, so I won't say much more about it. But in general the Academy seems to award movies that tackle important issues but give simple or cliche answers and are often manipulative towards an audiences emtion in a false way to bring them to that kind of emotional response. Sadly I've heard reviews of Slumdog Millionaire from people I respect who seem to say this fits in that category. Since I can't say for sure since I haven't seen it, I'll hold off judgement. But I have seen best picture winners Million Dollar Baby (what's with the million dollar motif here??) and Crash, and those are some examples. Because I'm a geek about my movie ratings and stats and such, I decided to check on what my average overall movie rating is vs. the average rating I gave for Best Picture Oscar winners. Out of about 1,181 feature length movies proper that I have rated, my average rating is 7.5250. Out of 33 of the Best Picture Oscar winners I have seen my average rating is 7.7727. There is only about a 3% difference between those numbers. So basically left to my own method of what movies I end up seeing compared to the Oscar winners, my level of enjoyment is pretty negligable. Or in otherwords, the average Best Picture Oscar winner that I've seen is not any better to me than than any other average movie I see. I would be interested in seeing the stats on Best Picture Oscar nominees, but getting those stats will probably take a lot longer, and I doubt there will be much difference there either. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_movie_awards_means_the_most_to_y/657/38981/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 12/31/2008 9:21:09 AM
Body: [quote user="JimBell"] ... I focus on nominations rather than winners. From a long list of nominations, I select the films I want to see in the next year or so. [/quote] I think in a similar way, paying attention to nominations but often rolling my eyes at the winners. Like tadiv says, it often feels like the Academy has ulterior motives. For example, I love Clint Eastwood even more than the next guy, but that doesn't mean Million Dollar Baby deserved Best Picture. I don't trust an Academy that needs advertising to learn about its subject matter. ("For your consideration: _______ for Best _______.")
]]>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:21:09 GMTSkyPilotMovie Polls12/31/2008 9:21:09 AM[quote user="JimBell"] ... I focus on nominations rather than winners. From a long list of nominations, I select the films I want to see in the next year or so. [/quote] I think in a similar way, paying attention to nominations but often rolling my eyes at the winners. Like tadiv says, it often feels like the Academy has ulterior motives. For example, I love Clint Eastwood even more than the next guy, but that doesn't mean Million Dollar Baby deserved Best Picture. I don't trust an Academy that needs advertising to learn about its subject matter. ("For your consideration: _______ for Best _______.") http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Movie_Prep/Weekly_Prep_for_10_24_Releases/651/36621/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: Weekly Movie Prep
Post Date: 10/23/2008 12:29:51 PM
Body: It's going to be an interesting Friday in theaters this week. You've got a handful of horror, a pretty standard looking cop flick, a period drama directed by one of Hollywood's elder statesmen and the third entry in a pre-pubescent-targeted series that's filled with singing and dancing basketball players. So it's a mixed bag to say the least. And here's what I'm probably watching in preparation for those: Changeling: Million Dollar Baby, Bridges of Madison County, Bronco Billy, A Mighty Heart - Clint Eastwood has a strong tendency to overdo it when it comes to putting his female characters up on a pedastal and these few movies are perfect examples of that. The last one, of course, is Angelina Jolie's previous entry in the "Won't Someone Help Me Find..." genre, something that allows her primarily to put those ginormous lips to their best pouting usage. High School Musical 3: High School Musical, High School Musical 2, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Breakfast Club, Superbad - It's best not to ask why I'm going to wind up seeing HSM3. But catching up on the story so far and then cleansing the pallet with some quality tales of high school hijinks that are decidedly less family-friendly is probably a good idea. I'm not much of a horror fan so I'm not likely to see the new batch of flicks. But what's on your docket for this week?
]]>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:29:51 GMTChrisThilkWeekly Movie Prep10/23/2008 12:29:51 PMIt's going to be an interesting Friday in theaters this week. You've got a handful of horror, a pretty standard looking cop flick, a period drama directed by one of Hollywood's elder statesmen and the third entry in a pre-pubescent-targeted series that's filled with singing and dancing basketball players. So it's a mixed bag to say the least. And here's what I'm probably watching in preparation for those: Changeling: Million Dollar Baby, Bridges of Madison County, Bronco Billy, A Mighty Heart - Clint Eastwood has a strong tendency to overdo it when it comes to putting his female characters up on a pedastal and these few movies are perfect examples of that. The last one, of course, is Angelina Jolie's previous entry in the "Won't Someone Help Me Find..." genre, something that allows her primarily to put those ginormous lips to their best pouting usage. High School Musical 3: High School Musical, High School Musical 2, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Breakfast Club, Superbad - It's best not to ask why I'm going to wind up seeing HSM3. But catching up on the story so far and then cleansing the pallet with some quality tales of high school hijinks that are decidedly less family-friendly is probably a good idea. I'm not much of a horror fan so I'm not likely to see the new batch of flicks. But what's on your docket for this week? http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/35211/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 9/16/2008 3:51:13 PM
Body: [quote user="seely"] [quote user="Risselada"] 2. Crash / Million Dollar Baby - two recent Oscar winners both written by that hack Paul Haggis. These movies are manipulative in the worst way. I call these movies where I can feel the writer's pen on the paper. Every character and development is impletemented to make you feel an exact emotion. I guess that doesn't have to be a bad thing, but when it's such an issue concious movie and you can really SEE what the filmmakers are doing, it really puts me off. Especially when people talk about how important these movies are. [/quote] Really well put... something about both always bothered me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I thought North Country fell into this category as well, [/quote] Thank you. I just read what I wrote again and was surprised how well I put that as well, since my writing can usually come off as rather incoherent to me when I go back and look it over. But I think I've been passionate long enough in my distaste for those types of manipulative, issue concious movies (with those two being some of the best examples) that I've had to reiterate my reasons why several times. And thank you, I will avoid watching North Country now. :)
]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:51:13 GMTRisseladaTop 59/16/2008 3:51:13 PM[quote user="seely"] [quote user="Risselada"] 2. Crash / Million Dollar Baby - two recent Oscar winners both written by that hack Paul Haggis. These movies are manipulative in the worst way. I call these movies where I can feel the writer's pen on the paper. Every character and development is impletemented to make you feel an exact emotion. I guess that doesn't have to be a bad thing, but when it's such an issue concious movie and you can really SEE what the filmmakers are doing, it really puts me off. Especially when people talk about how important these movies are. [/quote] Really well put... something about both always bothered me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I thought North Country fell into this category as well, [/quote] Thank you. I just read what I wrote again and was surprised how well I put that as well, since my writing can usually come off as rather incoherent to me when I go back and look it over. But I think I've been passionate long enough in my distaste for those types of manipulative, issue concious movies (with those two being some of the best examples) that I've had to reiterate my reasons why several times. And thank you, I will avoid watching North Country now. :) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8747

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 828

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:55:31 GMT8747157828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/depressing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdepressing
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 74

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT554574Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/powerful/MemberTagFilms.aspxpowerful
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 70

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT484370Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/boxing/MemberTagFilms.aspxboxing
Number of films tagged: 746

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 55

]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:04:16 GMT7463155Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/woman/MemberTagFilms.aspxwoman
Number of films tagged: 2015

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 41

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT20151941Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Actress/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Actress
Number of films tagged: 82

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 99

]]>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:09:54 GMT821199Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obvious/MemberTagFilms.aspxobvious
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:17:24 GMT556Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/womanpower/MemberTagFilms.aspxwomanpower
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 7

]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:23:50 GMT357Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Supporting-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Supporting-Actor
Number of films tagged: 71

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 77

]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:21:24 GMT71477Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Dirtyharry/MemberTagFilms.aspxDirtyharry
Number of films tagged: 94

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 95

]]>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:42:24 GMT94395Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/euthanasia/MemberTagFilms.aspxeuthanasia
Number of films tagged: 68

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:03:17 GMT6833Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/best-of-clint/MemberTagFilms.aspxbest-of-clint
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 10

]]>Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:55:16 GMT9210Tag